 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Robertson v. Commonwealth4/25/2002
nduct, which is, of course, contrary to Appellant's claim of self-protection. The Commonwealth's case rested on an assumption that Appellant was lying. It was not misconduct for the attorney to point this out to the jury. For the same reasons, it was not misconduct for the attorney to tell the jury that it could not find self-defense. The attorney was merely summarizing what he believed the evidence to show. This is the intended purpose of closing argument, and was not misconduct.
As for the reference to a killing in a public place, which Appellant claims was used to allude to the Heath High School shooting, we find that this statement did not render the entire trial fundamentally unfair. This statement was based on the evidence. Appellant did shoot Mathis in a public place, and the Commonwealth Attorney made a fair comment on this evidence. Although a school shooting had occurred in the community, the Commonwealth Attorney made no reference to it.
Commonwealth Attorneys seek indictments and try cases when they believe in the defendant's guilt and their ability to convince a jury of it. We will not unnecessarily limit their tools for doing this. Where, as here, the prosecutor's comments involve reasonable inferences drawn from the evidence and expressed in a less than prejudicial way, we will not punish the prosecutor for doing his job energetically. Appellant's trial was not rendered fundamentally unfair by the Commonwealth Attorney's conduct. We find no misconduct and affirm the conviction.
IV. CONCLUSION
For the above-mentioned reasons, we find no merit in Appellant's allegations of error. Therefore, we affirm the judgment of the McCracken Circuit Court.
All concur.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Kentucky DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|